I have a question about reducing the work week

[Bronzeage]

Let's say Congress passed, and the President signed a law mandating a 30-hour work week. Anything worked over 30 hours a week would be subject to overtime pay requirements like we do now with the 40 hour work week.

How would this actually work?

Would hourly wages remain the same so now you have to make due on 10 hours less a week in earning? Or would wages get adjusted so if you were making $500/week working 40 hours you'd still earn $500/week working 30 hours?

This would essentially be a 12.5% pay raise for all wage earners, if nothing else changed. If the expected 40 hour pay were compressed into the 30 hour week, and the person worked the additional 10 hours, it would be a 37.5% pay raise. I don't think that is a likely scenario.

The economic question to answer is how much production would be lost if the work week were cut by 25%. A manager has a few options. The first is to pay the money and absorb the difference. Another option is to hire more people and limit them to 30 hrs. This keeps the payroll down, but increases costs, especially the intangible costs of managing more people. Unless production increases by about 25%, the business becomes less efficient.

The idea of shorter work weeks as a method of increasing employment has been around for a long time. The problem with the idea is that in times of high unemployment, many businesses are on the margin of profitability. Any decrease in efficiency will push them into a money losing situation. This leads to layoffs and business closings, which is the opposite of the policy's goal.

I think it could conceivably reduce "unemployment" in the sense of more people having some sort of job but I don't see how it would increase the aggregate hours worked or wages (if anything the inefficiencies created would depress these) so you'd be spreading the same amount (or less) money around to more people. Not sure that's a good thing.

It is not a good thing. Using more people to do the same amount of work is unavoidably less efficient. The money lost through these inefficiencies would be better spent on investment in training and economic infrastructure. It's the old "teach a man to fish and then build a pier to fish off of" thing.

 

[bilby]

Let's say Congress passed, and the President signed a law mandating a 30-hour work week. Anything worked over 30 hours a week would be subject to overtime pay requirements like we do now with the 40 hour work week.

How would this actually work?

Would hourly wages remain the same so now you have to make due on 10 hours less a week in earning? Or would wages get adjusted so if you were making $500/week working 40 hours you'd still earn $500/week working 30 hours?

This would essentially be a 12.5% pay raise for all wage earners, if nothing else changed. If the expected 40 hour pay were compressed into the 30 hour week, and the person worked the additional 10 hours, it would be a 37.5% pay raise. I don't think that is a likely scenario.

The economic question to answer is how much production would be lost if the work week were cut by 25%. A manager has a few options. The first is to pay the money and absorb the difference. Another option is to hire more people and limit them to 30 hrs. This keeps the payroll down, but increases costs, especially the intangible costs of managing more people. Unless production increases by about 25%, the business becomes less efficient.

The idea of shorter work weeks as a method of increasing employment has been around for a long time. The problem with the idea is that in times of high unemployment, many businesses are on the margin of profitability. Any decrease in efficiency will push them into a money losing situation. This leads to layoffs and business closings, which is the opposite of the policy's goal.

I think it could conceivably reduce "unemployment" in the sense of more people having some sort of job but I don't see how it would increase the aggregate hours worked or wages (if anything the inefficiencies created would depress these) so you'd be spreading the same amount (or less) money around to more people. Not sure that's a good thing.

It is not a good thing. Using more people to do the same amount of work is unavoidably less efficient. The money lost through these inefficiencies would be better spent on investment in training and economic infrastructure. It's the old "teach a man to fish and then build a pier to fish off of" thing.

That rather depends; even if the objective is to make as much saleable product as possible, then having one man working 168 hours a week rather then four working 42 hours each, would still not be the most efficient option, so clearly there is some 'optimum' hours per week figure above which productivity and efficiency begin to decline.

The position of that optimum probably varies from worker to worker, as well as from job to job, so picking an arbitrary number (say 40) and declaring it to be better than another arbitrary number (say 30) seems to me to be unsupported by the limited evidence so far presented.

Of course, if, in addition to making saleable product, one wishes to provide a comfortable long-term working environment for the employees, the situation changes yet again. Even if working 40 hours a week is 'best' for productivity, that does not necessarily imply that it is the best option for society as a whole - if society is expected to foot the bill for stress leave, health related early retirement, rehabilitation of people who have been pushed beyond their limits, etc., then perhaps shorter hours are better in the broad sense, and setting the hours at 40 per week is simply externalising the costs of supporting the workers (and their dependants) after they are used up and broken by the stresses of the job.

Some things are not easily measured in dollar terms - and some things that can be measured in dollars and cents are conveniently ignored by employers, who put the burden back on the wider society in which they operate.

 

[dismal]

The net effect is same number of hours being worked at same price but additional inefficiencies since you have banned the more efficient solution.

Which "more efficient solution" have I banned?

And you missed telling me what this "more efficient solution" is that I've supposedly banned.

dismal, what is the "more efficient solution" I banned?

Whichever voluntary agreements between workers and employers you seek to ban. *shrug*

 

[ksen]

The net effect is same number of hours being worked at same price but additional inefficiencies since you have banned the more efficient solution.

Which "more efficient solution" have I banned?

And you missed telling me what this "more efficient solution" is that I've supposedly banned.

dismal, what is the "more efficient solution" I banned?

Whichever voluntary agreements between workers and employers you seek to ban. *shrug*

Well, what makes those more efficient?

And what do you mean voluntary? You mean voluntary like your employer saying work overtime or get fired and you voluntarily doing it or not eating?

 

[Bronzeage]

Let's say Congress passed, and the President signed a law mandating a 30-hour work week. Anything worked over 30 hours a week would be subject to overtime pay requirements like we do now with the 40 hour work week.

How would this actually work?

Would hourly wages remain the same so now you have to make due on 10 hours less a week in earning? Or would wages get adjusted so if you were making $500/week working 40 hours you'd still earn $500/week working 30 hours?

This would essentially be a 12.5% pay raise for all wage earners, if nothing else changed. If the expected 40 hour pay were compressed into the 30 hour week, and the person worked the additional 10 hours, it would be a 37.5% pay raise. I don't think that is a likely scenario.

The economic question to answer is how much production would be lost if the work week were cut by 25%. A manager has a few options. The first is to pay the money and absorb the difference. Another option is to hire more people and limit them to 30 hrs. This keeps the payroll down, but increases costs, especially the intangible costs of managing more people. Unless production increases by about 25%, the business becomes less efficient.

The idea of shorter work weeks as a method of increasing employment has been around for a long time. The problem with the idea is that in times of high unemployment, many businesses are on the margin of profitability. Any decrease in efficiency will push them into a money losing situation. This leads to layoffs and business closings, which is the opposite of the policy's goal.

I think it could conceivably reduce "unemployment" in the sense of more people having some sort of job but I don't see how it would increase the aggregate hours worked or wages (if anything the inefficiencies created would depress these) so you'd be spreading the same amount (or less) money around to more people. Not sure that's a good thing.

It is not a good thing. Using more people to do the same amount of work is unavoidably less efficient. The money lost through these inefficiencies would be better spent on investment in training and economic infrastructure. It's the old "teach a man to fish and then build a pier to fish off of" thing.

That rather depends; even if the objective is to make as much saleable product as possible, then having one man working 168 hours a week rather then four working 42 hours each, would still not be the most efficient option, so clearly there is some 'optimum' hours per week figure above which productivity and efficiency begin to decline.

The position of that optimum probably varies from worker to worker, as well as from job to job, so picking an arbitrary number (say 40) and declaring it to be better than another arbitrary number (say 30) seems to me to be unsupported by the limited evidence so far presented.

Of course, if, in addition to making saleable product, one wishes to provide a comfortable long-term working environment for the employees, the situation changes yet again. Even if working 40 hours a week is 'best' for productivity, that does not necessarily imply that it is the best option for society as a whole - if society is expected to foot the bill for stress leave, health related early retirement, rehabilitation of people who have been pushed beyond their limits, etc., then perhaps shorter hours are better in the broad sense, and setting the hours at 40 per week is simply externalising the costs of supporting the workers (and their dependants) after they are used up and broken by the stresses of the job.

Some things are not easily measured in dollar terms - and some things that can be measured in dollars and cents are conveniently ignored by employers, who put the burden back on the wider society in which they operate.

All systems tend to reach an equilibrium when the inputs are constant. The OP was about the effects of a change in labor laws. Whether the new equilibrium would be better or worse, is a separate discussion.

The extremes of any system are always absurd, or at least pointless.

 

[barbos]

I don't know if it was mentioned but shorter work week will in principle reduce unemployment and since working people effectively pay unemployed, the overall wage could stay more less the same.
Also shorter hours could shift job distribution toward more productive and less wasteful.
I mean with productivity going higher and higher there is less demand for actually meaningful jobs and people are forced to invent new meaningless desk jobs like accounting, tax specialists, personal trainers (for people who are too fat from sitting and doing taxes all day), used cars dealers, dog walkers, banksters, politicians, Fox News personalities, etc.

1) Working people only pay the unemployed for as long as the unemployment coverage lasts.

2) Unemployment is never anything like what they made in their job.

And why do you consider the jobs meaningless? (Other than personal trainers. An occasional observation of whether you are exercising right could be useful, one-on-one on an ongoing basis makes no sense to me.)

1. As long as unemployed gets any kind of money be it unemployment or social security or any other kind of assistance it is taken from from people who work.

And what is the meaning of tax preparing job? or what is the meaning of fast trading scams?
they produce no tangible benefit overall. They merely redistribute other people's money.

 

[dismal]

The net effect is same number of hours being worked at same price but additional inefficiencies since you have banned the more efficient solution.

Which "more efficient solution" have I banned?

And you missed telling me what this "more efficient solution" is that I've supposedly banned.

dismal, what is the "more efficient solution" I banned?

Whichever voluntary agreements between workers and employers you seek to ban. *shrug*

Well, what makes those more efficient?

The fact that people would do certain arrangements if you didn't ban them suggests they are more efficient to the people involved. For example, evidence suggests that left to their own free will some people would choose to work 40 hour per week. if you make it artificially punitive to hire someone for more than 30 hours per week, they will have to find more than one job. Employers will have to hire more employees to get the same amount of labor for the same price. These are inefficiencies that cause society a loss.

And what do you mean voluntary? You mean voluntary like your employer saying work overtime or get fired and you voluntarily doing it or not eating?

I mean people choose to do it without being forced.

 

[ksen]

Well, what makes those more efficient?

The fact that people would do certain arrangements if you didn't ban them suggests they are more efficient to the people involved.

Not necessarily.

And I think you have this idea that the labor market is made up of buyers and sellers negotiating in good faith and with close to equal power. It's not even remotely like that so more often than not, without some sort of regulation to even the playing field, you'd end up with powerful buyers just dictating terms to the sellers and the sellers left with "choices" that are not viable and are really not choices at all.

For example, evidence suggests that left to their own free will some people would choose to work 40 hour per week.

What evidence?

You know that 40 hours is just as arbitrary a number as 30 hours would be. And if 40 hours is more efficient than 30 hours then wouldn't 50 hours be more efficient than 40 hours and wouldn't 80 hours be even more efficient?

Maybe we should just get rid of that law that requires OT after 40 hours and just let individuals and businesses work it out among themselves since that seemed to work out really well for people before we had OT laws.

if you make it artificially punitive to hire someone for more than 30 hours per week, they will have to find more than one job. Employers will have to hire more employees to get the same amount of labor for the same price. These are inefficiencies that cause society a loss.

You still ignore that these inefficiencies you're worried about have not materialized in other industrialized countries that have shorter than 40 hour work weeks. I understand you have an economic model in mind that says this should happen but in the real world it hasn't happened.

And what do you mean voluntary? You mean voluntary like your employer saying work overtime or get fired and you voluntarily doing it or not eating?

I mean people choose to do it without being forced.

I think we have different definitions for "forced."

 

[Bronzeage]

1. As long as unemployed gets any kind of money be it unemployment or social security or any other kind of assistance it is taken from from people who work.

And what is the meaning of tax preparing job? or what is the meaning of fast trading scams?
they produce no tangible benefit overall. They merely redistribute other people's money.

This depends on how you count the money. I worked nearly every work day of my life from age 17 to 46. During those 29 years, my employer had to pay a small percentage of my weekly pay to the government which paid the unemployment tax. This was essentially part of my compensation, which I never saw at the time. Due to some unfortunate circumstances, my job disappeared. Due to some fortunate circumstances, I did not have to immediately replace the lost income and was able to cheerfully collect about a quarter of my previous pay as unemployment benefits. So, in my case, I was taking money I had already earned. Since I only collected checks for six months, I calculate the state of Louisiana still has a lot of my money.

I'm not sure why you think a tax preparing job produces no benefit. The nature of any service job, whether it is tax preparer or automotive mechanic, is to preserve current wealth. The service sector of the economy may not actually produce wealth, in the same way a miner or factory worker does, but without maintenance and management, a lot of produced wealth would either waste away or be inaccessible.

 

[dismal]

sen;26698]

Well, what makes those more efficient?

The fact that people would do certain arrangements if you didn't ban them suggests they are more efficient to the people involved.

Not necessarily.

And I think you have this idea that the labor market is made up of buyers and sellers negotiating in good faith and with close to equal power. It's not even remotely like that so more often than not, without some sort of regulation to even the playing field, you'd end up with powerful buyers just dictating terms to the sellers and the sellers left with "choices" that are not viable and are really not choices at all.

None of this is even slightly relevant to the question you have asked. Near as I can tell. Why do you think it is?

For example, evidence suggests that left to their own free will some people would choose to work 40 hour per week.

What evidence?

You question whether there are people working 40 hour weeks today? And if you don't believe people are people doing it why did you start a thread about stopping people from doing it?

You know that 40 hours is just as arbitrary a number as 30 hours would be. And if 40 hours is more efficient than 30 hours then wouldn't 50 hours be more efficient than 40 hours and wouldn't 80 hours be even more efficient?

If you actually are unable to understand why having to hire more people to get the same amount of work done and having to get more jobs to work the same amount of hours is inefficient it does not seem likely it will be possible to have a productive discussion. This seems to fall under the category "blindingly obvious".

Maybe we should just get rid of that law that requires OT after 40 hours and just let individuals and businesses work it out among themselves since that seemed to work out really well for people before we had OT laws.

Yes, of course we should.

You still ignore that these inefficiencies you're worried about have not materialized in other industrialized countries that have shorter than 40 hour work weeks. I understand you have an economic model in mind that says this should happen but in the real world it hasn't happened.

Of course they would. You can't, with even a slight familiarity with basic economic concepts, escape the reasoning that they would happen. You have at this point offered no coherent argument as to how your proposal would affect either the aggregate supply of labor, the aggregate demand for labor, or the price of labor.

And what do you mean voluntary? You mean voluntary like your employer saying work overtime or get fired and you voluntarily doing it or not eating?

I mean people choose to do it without being forced.

I think we have different definitions for "forced."

Yeah unfortunately the whole "wage slavery" thing never really caught on because it bears no relation to what people experience in the real world.

But maybe you'll be the great neo-Marxist hope who convinces Americans they have been enslaved by their employers. Good luck. But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow.

 

[ksen]

dismal, if I become the great neo-Marxist hope you will always be welcome at my prole cocktail parties.

 

[dismal]

dismal, if I become the great neo-Marxist hope you will always be welcome at my prole cocktail parties.

Well, let me know so I can get a tweed jacket with elbow patches and start growing a pony tail.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't know if it was mentioned but shorter work week will in principle reduce unemployment and since working people effectively pay unemployed, the overall wage could stay more less the same.
Also shorter hours could shift job distribution toward more productive and less wasteful.
I mean with productivity going higher and higher there is less demand for actually meaningful jobs and people are forced to invent new meaningless desk jobs like accounting, tax specialists, personal trainers (for people who are too fat from sitting and doing taxes all day), used cars dealers, dog walkers, banksters, politicians, Fox News personalities, etc.

1) Working people only pay the unemployed for as long as the unemployment coverage lasts.

2) Unemployment is never anything like what they made in their job.

And why do you consider the jobs meaningless? (Other than personal trainers. An occasional observation of whether you are exercising right could be useful, one-on-one on an ongoing basis makes no sense to me.)

1. As long as unemployed gets any kind of money be it unemployment or social security or any other kind of assistance it is taken from from people who work.

And what is the meaning of tax preparing job? or what is the meaning of fast trading scams?
they produce no tangible benefit overall. They merely redistribute other people's money.

Tax: How do you plan to fund government without tax? And anything besides a totally flat tax involves a fair amount of complexity as to what constitutes income.

Accounting: An accountants job is to tell you how much money you have available and that the proper amounts are being paid. Sure, at the individual level this is simple enough but in the business world it no longer is. You can't just look at the bank account.

Used car dealers: So there should be no secondary market in cars?

Dog walkers: Some people aren't home for long enough stretches that they need a dog walker.

Bankers: No banks means no checks, it means no credit cards, it means no loans.

Politicians: While many are scum that doesn't mean we don't need the profession. Direct democracy does not work when the issues are complex.

Faux Noise personalities: They are entertainers. You think we don't need entertainment?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You know that 40 hours is just as arbitrary a number as 30 hours would be. And if 40 hours is more efficient than 30 hours then wouldn't 50 hours be more efficient than 40 hours and wouldn't 80 hours be even more efficient?

Maybe we should just get rid of that law that requires OT after 40 hours and just let individuals and businesses work it out among themselves since that seemed to work out really well for people before we had OT laws.

What I would like to see is a different approach: No employer could require working more than 40 hours/week except in fields where you can't just walk off in the middle of the job and even then nobody can be required to be scheduled more than 40hr/wk. Remove the overtime laws, though.

 

[barbos]

I don't know if it was mentioned but shorter work week will in principle reduce unemployment and since working people effectively pay unemployed, the overall wage could stay more less the same.
Also shorter hours could shift job distribution toward more productive and less wasteful.
I mean with productivity going higher and higher there is less demand for actually meaningful jobs and people are forced to invent new meaningless desk jobs like accounting, tax specialists, personal trainers (for people who are too fat from sitting and doing taxes all day), used cars dealers, dog walkers, banksters, politicians, Fox News personalities, etc.

1) Working people only pay the unemployed for as long as the unemployment coverage lasts.

2) Unemployment is never anything like what they made in their job.

And why do you consider the jobs meaningless? (Other than personal trainers. An occasional observation of whether you are exercising right could be useful, one-on-one on an ongoing basis makes no sense to me.)

1. As long as unemployed gets any kind of money be it unemployment or social security or any other kind of assistance it is taken from from people who work.

And what is the meaning of tax preparing job? or what is the meaning of fast trading scams?
they produce no tangible benefit overall. They merely redistribute other people's money.

Tax: How do you plan to fund government without tax? And anything besides a totally flat tax involves a fair amount of complexity as to what constitutes income.

You can have taxes without need to file endless forms and you can do it yourself, even without flat tax.

Accounting: An accountants job is to tell you how much money you have available and that the proper amounts are being paid. Sure, at the individual level this is simple enough but in the business world it no longer is. You can't just look at the bank account.

That's not really what accountants in business do, and you know that.

Used car dealers: So there should be no secondary market in cars?

There should be, but not with so many people in it.

Dog walkers: Some people aren't home for long enough stretches that they need a dog walker.

Why do they have dogs then?

Bankers: No banks means no checks, it means no credit cards, it means no loans.

I said banksters, not bankers. And bankers are not needed for checks.

Politicians: While many are scum that doesn't mean we don't need the profession. Direct democracy does not work when the issues are complex.

not many, career politicians are almost certainly corrupt.

Faux Noise personalities: They are entertainers. You think we don't need entertainment?

Oh I see, I have got it all wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Tax: How do you plan to fund government without tax? And anything besides a totally flat tax involves a fair amount of complexity as to what constitutes income.

You can have taxes without need to file endless forms and you can do it yourself, even without flat tax.

When your finances are simple, yes. Unfortunately, once you get into the investment world you sometimes find things get pretty complex because of rules meant to close loopholes and ensure a dollar is taxed exactly once. While there is a lot that could be done to clean things up (for example, one of Congress' pet ways to raise revenue has been to take things that never should have been income in the first place and turn them into schedule A deductions instead--and sometimes collecting FICA in the process which isn't subject to deductions.) there are a lot of complex cases out there.

Once you get into the business world it gets even more complex. So far I have been able to avoid dealing with the depreciation rules due to the very low amounts of capital we need. (We are both self-employed at this point.)

Accounting: An accountants job is to tell you how much money you have available and that the proper amounts are being paid. Sure, at the individual level this is simple enough but in the business world it no longer is. You can't just look at the bank account.

That's not really what accountants in business do, and you know that.

Sure I was simplifying but that's the basic thing they do--track money, ensuring the right amounts go to the right places and telling the boss how much he could invest.

Used car dealers: So there should be no secondary market in cars?

There should be, but not with so many people in it.

Why do you think there are too many people? And even if there are that's not saying the profession is useless.

Dog walkers: Some people aren't home for long enough stretches that they need a dog walker.

Why do they have dogs then?

Because they want dogs. In the suburbs they get a doggie door or a doghouse and the dog can use the yard. In places without private yards that's not an option, if your dog can't hold it 9 hours (can you??) you need a dog walker unless there's someone who stays home all day.

Bankers: No banks means no checks, it means no credit cards, it means no loans.

I said banksters, not bankers. And bankers are not needed for checks.

You made up a word, I substituted the closest real one. You'll need to explain.

Politicians: While many are scum that doesn't mean we don't need the profession. Direct democracy does not work when the issues are complex.

not many, career politicians are almost certainly corrupt.

Corrupt politicians are still better for society than no politicians.

 

[barbos]

--

 

[barbos]

Tax: How do you plan to fund government without tax? And anything besides a totally flat tax involves a fair amount of complexity as to what constitutes income.

You can have taxes without need to file endless forms and you can do it yourself, even without flat tax.

When your finances are simple, yes. Unfortunately, once you get into the investment world you sometimes find things get pretty complex because of rules meant to close loopholes and ensure a dollar is taxed exactly once. While there is a lot that could be done to clean things up (for example, one of Congress' pet ways to raise revenue has been to take things that never should have been income in the first place and turn them into schedule A deductions instead--and sometimes collecting FICA in the process which isn't subject to deductions.) there are a lot of complex cases out there.

Once you get into the business world it gets even more complex. So far I have been able to avoid dealing with the depreciation rules due to the very low amounts of capital we need. (We are both self-employed at this point.)

Stop being dense.
It's complex because it was designed to be complex. But it does not have to be, that's what I said.

Accounting: An accountants job is to tell you how much money you have available and that the proper amounts are being paid. Sure, at the individual level this is simple enough but in the business world it no longer is. You can't just look at the bank account.

That's not really what accountants in business do, and you know that.

Sure I was simplifying but that's the basic thing they do--track money, ensuring the right amounts go to the right places and telling the boss how much he could invest.

Bullcrap, all they do is avoiding taxes looking and promoting loopholes.

Used car dealers: So there should be no secondary market in cars?

There should be, but not with so many people in it.

Why do you think there are too many people? And even if there are that's not saying the profession is useless.

I did not say it was useless, I said it was much less useful than other jobs

Dog walkers: Some people aren't home for long enough stretches that they need a dog walker.

Why do they have dogs then?

Because they want dogs. In the suburbs they get a doggie door or a doghouse and the dog can use the yard. In places without private yards that's not an option, if your dog can't hold it 9 hours (can you??) you need a dog walker unless there's someone who stays home all day.

Bankers: No banks means no checks, it means no credit cards, it means no loans.

I said banksters, not bankers. And bankers are not needed for checks.

You made up a word, I substituted the closest real one. You'll need to explain.

I did not make that word. It's well known word, google it.

Politicians: While many are scum that doesn't mean we don't need the profession. Direct democracy does not work when the issues are complex.

not many, career politicians are almost certainly corrupt.

Corrupt politicians are still better for society than no politicians.

Says who?
And I did not suggest no politicians. I suggested no career politicians.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Tax: How do you plan to fund government without tax? And anything besides a totally flat tax involves a fair amount of complexity as to what constitutes income.

You can have taxes without need to file endless forms and you can do it yourself, even without flat tax.

When your finances are simple, yes. Unfortunately, once you get into the investment world you sometimes find things get pretty complex because of rules meant to close loopholes and ensure a dollar is taxed exactly once. While there is a lot that could be done to clean things up (for example, one of Congress' pet ways to raise revenue has been to take things that never should have been income in the first place and turn them into schedule A deductions instead--and sometimes collecting FICA in the process which isn't subject to deductions.) there are a lot of complex cases out there.

Once you get into the business world it gets even more complex. So far I have been able to avoid dealing with the depreciation rules due to the very low amounts of capital we need. (We are both self-employed at this point.)

Stop being dense.
It's complex because it was designed to be complex. But it does not have to be, that's what I said.

Just because you said so doesn't make it true. I've found the IRS rules generally make a lot of sense when you actually dig into them. There are cases that are crap from Washington but most of the complexity I have encountered is about ensuring fairness, not about crap.

Accounting: An accountants job is to tell you how much money you have available and that the proper amounts are being paid. Sure, at the individual level this is simple enough but in the business world it no longer is. You can't just look at the bank account.

That's not really what accountants in business do, and you know that.

Sure I was simplifying but that's the basic thing they do--track money, ensuring the right amounts go to the right places and telling the boss how much he could invest.

Bullcrap, all they do is avoiding taxes looking and promoting loopholes.

Sorry, but I've had to work with accounting a fair amount as many of the outputs of my program were inputs to theirs. I pushed a lot of data their way and accepted some back--and never once were taxes involved other than as a budget line (for the FICA costs of employee labor, something where there's no avoiding.)

It was all about ensuring the numbers were right. (And the CFO went nuts when he encountered my program including a deliberate one penny fudge. It took several hours to get him to accept that I had been given a problem where there sometimes was no correct solution. {You have a total contract price of $x. This is really $y + sales tax, those numbers must be calculated. He felt that there always should be a correct value for $y when in practice there sometimes will not be.})

Bankers: No banks means no checks, it means no credit cards, it means no loans.

I said banksters, not bankers. And bankers are not needed for checks.

You made up a word, I substituted the closest real one. You'll need to explain.

I did not make that word. It's well known word, google it.

I wouldn't call it well known but I see references to it. Since it's by definition bad guys of course we don't need them. Your assertion is the same as saying we don't need murderers--true but of no value.

Politicians: While many are scum that doesn't mean we don't need the profession. Direct democracy does not work when the issues are complex.

not many, career politicians are almost certainly corrupt.

Corrupt politicians are still better for society than no politicians.

Says who?
And I did not suggest no politicians. I suggested no career politicians.

Unfortunately, at the higher levels that's pretty much how it has to be.

The guy who goes off to Congress for two years and then goes home sounds good--except it's not.

1) You really want to start them off with no experience??

2) The reality is that they're out of the labor force for some years--and thus will have a hard time finding a new job in any field you need to keep current in.

 

[barbos]

Tax: How do you plan to fund government without tax? And anything besides a totally flat tax involves a fair amount of complexity as to what constitutes income.

You can have taxes without need to file endless forms and you can do it yourself, even without flat tax.

When your finances are simple, yes. Unfortunately, once you get into the investment world you sometimes find things get pretty complex because of rules meant to close loopholes and ensure a dollar is taxed exactly once. While there is a lot that could be done to clean things up (for example, one of Congress' pet ways to raise revenue has been to take things that never should have been income in the first place and turn them into schedule A deductions instead--and sometimes collecting FICA in the process which isn't subject to deductions.) there are a lot of complex cases out there.

Once you get into the business world it gets even more complex. So far I have been able to avoid dealing with the depreciation rules due to the very low amounts of capital we need. (We are both self-employed at this point.)

Stop being dense.
It's complex because it was designed to be complex. But it does not have to be, that's what I said.

Just because you said so doesn't make it true. I've found the IRS rules generally make a lot of sense when you actually dig into them. There are cases that are crap from Washington but most of the complexity I have encountered is about ensuring fairness, not about crap.

Bullshit. Complicated tax code can not be fair, because only rich can really take advantage of the complexity.

Accounting: An accountants job is to tell you how much money you have available and that the proper amounts are being paid. Sure, at the individual level this is simple enough but in the business world it no longer is. You can't just look at the bank account.

That's not really what accountants in business do, and you know that.

Sure I was simplifying but that's the basic thing they do--track money, ensuring the right amounts go to the right places and telling the boss how much he could invest.

Bullcrap, all they do is avoiding taxes looking and promoting loopholes.

Sorry, but I've had to work with accounting a fair amount as many of the outputs of my program were inputs to theirs. I pushed a lot of data their way and accepted some back--and never once were taxes involved other than as a budget line (for the FICA costs of employee labor, something where there's no avoiding.)

Bullcrap. Simple tax code will kill all accounting, without any adverse effect. In fact there will be a number of positive effects from kicking bean counters out of the picture

It was all about ensuring the numbers were right. (And the CFO went nuts when he encountered my program including a deliberate one penny fudge. It took several hours to get him to accept that I had been given a problem where there sometimes was no correct solution. {You have a total contract price of $x. This is really $y + sales tax, those numbers must be calculated. He felt that there always should be a correct value for $y when in practice there sometimes will not be.})

Bankers: No banks means no checks, it means no credit cards, it means no loans.

I said banksters, not bankers. And bankers are not needed for checks.

You made up a word, I substituted the closest real one. You'll need to explain.

I did not make that word. It's well known word, google it.

I wouldn't call it well known but I see references to it. Since it's by definition bad guys of course we don't need them. Your assertion is the same as saying we don't need murderers--true but of no value.

Yes, Wall Street is 100% bad guys.

Politicians: While many are scum that doesn't mean we don't need the profession. Direct democracy does not work when the issues are complex.

not many, career politicians are almost certainly corrupt.

Corrupt politicians are still better for society than no politicians.

Says who?
And I did not suggest no politicians. I suggested no career politicians.

Unfortunately, at the higher levels that's pretty much how it has to be.

The guy who goes off to Congress for two years and then goes home sounds good--except it's not.

1) You really want to start them off with no experience??

2) The reality is that they're out of the labor force for some years--and thus will have a hard time finding a new job in any field you need to keep current in.

Yes I want people without experience in the bullshit which goes on in there.